PDA

View Full Version : HoC and WoC



Jack of Blades
17-02-2010, 17:20
I want your opinions on the relation between these two books. Most importantly, which one gave the most options? but also the feel of the army, did it get better or worse? is it more fun now or then? pros and cons of the books versus eachother? write whatever you have in mind.

This is because I keep reading about how WoC was a long jump backwards into a poisoned bear trap, but I want to see a good discussion on this.

tarrym
17-02-2010, 18:42
Personally when the new WoC book came out I was initially disappointed as I had already gone to lengths to collect a mortals army supported by daemons and beasts.

However I am starting really enjoy the current army rules. The only thing I really wish they'd fixed is how useless the Slaanesh lore is against ItP units - no magic lore should be useless against a significant % of the races out there :)

willowdark
17-02-2010, 18:52
I think a lot of people who complain about limitations aren't really thinking about the actual HoC book, only that you could ally with Beasts and Daemons. The only thing HoC had going for it was core Knights and Chariots. That's nothing to shake a stick at, but it doesn't make HoC a better book, especially since Marauders are cheaper now and Marauder Horsemen are so much better.

E-Dog
17-02-2010, 18:52
Well, Hoc gave WAY more options. So many infact I never had time to try out all the lists you could do with that army. Pros HoC: Limitless options, got to use my whole collection, never got old playing/painting the army. Cons Hoc: not many, did have some OTT builds, but thats about it. Pros WoC: Mauraders with mark of Khorne, Chaos Knights have improved which is crazy, because they were sick before. ASF Giant , yes please. Some really good stuff in there really, and its been pretty fun to play. Cons WoC: No more demons or beasts:(. It has been fun and challenging to play the army in a new way, but not alot of variety of builds.

Jack of Blades
17-02-2010, 18:56
Well that's interesting... thanks for your input, I hope to see more. I've always wondered since the WoC book was released whether people were complaining that it was worse than the old book and/or a sidestep, or that it simply failed to meet their expectations and thus was worse than the old book because they could use it as a framework to get it right this time.

I myself am of mixed feelings. For example the gifts back then were a lot more characterful and better, but they were also very restricted. The ''feel'' of each of the marks has been made worse but in return you don't have to constrict your army with them. The list goes on...

Lordsaradain
17-02-2010, 19:16
The new book has better models. The old book had better fluff and rules.

Condottiere
17-02-2010, 19:22
I remember Chaos pre-7, Beastmen Chief with mark of Tzeentch, Ungor/Gor Screens, Tzeentch Chariots, Gargoyles, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Knights, Chaos Trolls, Khornedogs, Flamers.

The Red Scourge
17-02-2010, 19:32
Trouble is WoC became just another human army. It could just as well have been named Warriors of Norsca, as it lost its chaotic feel, when beasts and daemons were taken from the book.

Chaos should be a horde of mutants, warriors and summoned daemons and not just ranked regiments of uniform warriors colorcoded for your convenience :p

BTW: HoC and BoC was one army. For some reason people have got the idea that they were two, just because they had separate books :)

willowdark
17-02-2010, 19:53
Although I agree with you, I'm a little skeptical about them being "just another human army," since there are only two other human armies, Empire and Bretonnia, in 7th ed. anyway, which DoW and Kislev have been left out of.

There are 3 Elf armies, all with similarities but also drastic differences. Do you really believe the human armies have less variation between each other than the elf armies do.

Jack of Blades
17-02-2010, 19:56
Although I agree with you, I'm a little skeptical about them being "just another human army," since there are only two other human armies, Empire and Bretonnia, in 7th ed. anyway, which DoW and Kislev have been left out of.

There are 3 Elf armies, all with similarities but also drastic differences. Do you really believe the human armies have less variation between each other than the elf armies do.

Well, to be fair the Elf armies are quite different. Bretonnians are just knights, it's like separating Dragon Princes and basing an army around different versions of them. Cold One Knights are nothing like Dragon Princes or Wild Riders but the same cannot be said for Knights of the Realm and Empire Knights. This is because they are both just humans on horses, the difference between the Elves is more than that.

willowdark
17-02-2010, 20:03
Chaos Knights have magic attacks, more attacks, cause fear and can take marks. They are every bit as different from Empire or Bret knights as CoK are from DPs.

And Brets have the Lance formation, which in and of itself makes them as unique as any knight unit could be. Brets also have the ward save, and virtues and vows.

Bretonnia is miles apart from Empire, and WoC is just as far away from both.

I don't mean to sound combative. I'm not exactly happy that the books got split and the fluff changed, but I just don't like the tendency to equate WoC with "Empire, but evil." I think there are fair similarities, and plenty of differences between the two, just like the dynamic between the Elven triumvirate.

Urgat
17-02-2010, 20:05
It's hard to argue that there's more difference between the DE and HE elves than there is between the empire and chaos humans, really. For starters, those humans don't even have the same basic (I take marauders as basic) statlines, while elves do have the same.

CraftworldsRus
17-02-2010, 20:07
I really like the WoC book, myself. I never really wanted cow-men or gribbly monsters running about in my army. I always favored the Viking feel, where you have a front line made out of 50 madmen in armor, all named Sven, led by Thor the Chaos Lord.

Honestly, the book begs to be used to portray Norse myths. I mean, Valkia? Just asking to be converted up as a Valkyrie. All that is missing is a World Serpent to kick off Ragnarok.

TheDarkDuke
17-02-2010, 20:13
Personally I think the new WoC book is one the the blandest armies out there now, where as HoC were quite varied had a ton of options and was just alot more fun for me to use. I personally have quit the chaos armies now due to the fact i just cant stand there rules along with other things, not to say there rules suck because they are a hell of a lot stronger now then back then but they just lack the character that i liked.( that and i want my damn tzeentch warrior mages back!)

The Red Scourge
17-02-2010, 20:49
Although I agree with you, I'm a little skeptical about them being "just another human army," since there are only two other human armies, Empire and Bretonnia, in 7th ed. anyway, which DoW and Kislev have been left out of.

They're just another human army just in the same way as the elves are different from each other so is brets/empire and WoC different from each other. Trouble is, WoC used to be so much more, beasts, daemons and what not added the image that chaos was everywhere in the world, an unstoppable uniting force, a tide of evil to envelope the world in eternal darkness. Splitting the three forces just left them all neutered and impotent. Now you'll face the warband of Blandgor the Bland, or raiders of Hymir the Bald or the spontaneous host of Ych'n'zych'pych and gone are the battles vs. every last nightmare in the world.

Really, if a sorceror of chaos aren't able to summon a measly lesser daemon to wreak havoc on this world, he could just as well go worship some lesser god like Sigmar :p

willowdark
17-02-2010, 20:54
Can't really argue with that. Mono-god armies of combined Beasts, Mortals and Daemons were certainly more interesting and impressive that mixed god armies of Men.

Roark
17-02-2010, 22:12
Whilst I don't mind the fluff in the new book, and I dig the variety in terms of monsters etc, the army list itself proves to be very limited in terms of competitive builds. The lack of magic defence is my biggest issue with the new list.

If you are going for a combat-focussed list, there are only 3 options for Magic defence: Collar of Khorne, Juggernaut, and Fury of the Blood God. All of these have to be applied to characters, and each only affects one unit.

Collar of Khorne: is OK, but is best applied to a Tzeentchian character, (which totally goes against the fluff, but nevermind), but is 35pts total worth it for a 5+ ward save and MR2? May as well give him Book of Secrets to maximise that Tzeentch mark. Oh wait, this is a combat list... FAIL.

Juggernaut: Yeah, this is a cool option for an Exalted Hero (Khorne), if you don't mind him (potentially a BSB) running off and getting into the wrong fights. MR1 is nothing huge, though.

Fury of the Blood God: Same as the Collar of Khorne, except that it doesn't take up equipment slots, BUT... your combat character can't take any magic items. Not so much a bad thing when you consider the mediocre magical equipment list that you're missing out on, but that also includes banners, and severely reduces the effectiveness of putting this on your BSB. Neutered.

...and thus was born the mighty Warr... err, Wizards of Chaos.

Don't get me wrong, I still love my Chaos army, but it's a bit frustrating to be so limited when Dark Elf players are running around with an ultra-flexible list and a huge variety of builds. Ah well...

Jack of Blades
17-02-2010, 22:21
Yeah, I also think it's very strange (in the bad way) that one of the supposedly most combat oriented armies in Warhammer is actually one of the worst to do it with... :rolleyes: I mean imagine some newcomer walking into a store.

''I wanna play a magic heavy army! I wanna swamp him in spells!''
''Hmm... here, begin with these'' and you hand him a bunch of frothing bloody knights? :rolleyes:...

Ujio
17-02-2010, 22:41
They're just boring now imo. Same builds each time, same tactics and no variety. Don't get me wrong, I still love playing them, but they've lost their chaos feel. Sure its kinda cool playing all warriors/knights etc for that viking style army, but why remove the additional options for a demon/warrior/beast horde for people who enjoy that instead? The biggest annoyance though is they've now become Wizards of Chaos, and a tzeentch sorcerer with a collar of khorne, I do like mixing marks and things but this is just plain wrong.

The Red Scourge
18-02-2010, 05:30
...and a tzeentch sorcerer with a collar of khorne, I do like mixing marks and things but this is just plain wrong.

Then just call it The Thingamabob of Whatchacallit +2, or spin a tale of how your sorcerer ripped it from the crispy burnt body of a Khornedog. That part is the least of the books problems - btw Tzeentch and Khorne has never had problems with each other :)

ChaosVC
18-02-2010, 05:47
HOC is more characterfull while WOC is more my taste though the playing style is a little boring. The thing about both armies is that alot of things are very pricy so you end up with a relatively small army if you want efficiency. But WOC allows you to play hordy marauders core theme armies that are still to s certain degree effective but not HOC.

That said, I think I have more tactical option and fun with troops type in HOC then I have with WOC. WOC is just a list hammer one way forward army, fun once in a while. But if WOC is the only army you have, warhammer games can get really boring fast, not so with the old HOC.

Djekar
18-02-2010, 07:34
My biggest problem with the split is that now I have a lot of scrambling to do to fit my daemons/beasts into my warriors list. Sure I could collect all three (no thank you), but since my HoC was primarily mortals anyway, I'll just stick with what I know.

Second biggest is that the list seems to lack flexibility. We have Cavalry and Infantry and some expensive options for flying around and scaring people. Some of the best units in the book (for me) are the ones that stand out from the waves of infantry each more elite than the last - things like the Hellcannon, the spawn and the Warshrines - things that give the list some variety, but I feel it's not enough - especially for an army of Chaos.

Well, all that and almost being shoved into a magic heavy list as others have said. It helps that you can Kit your sorcerers out to be combaty, but does taking a Chaos Lord have to be *that* much worse of an option over a Sorcerer?

Peregijn
18-02-2010, 09:26
if only the old marks where the same...
i mis my lord of tzeentch, the stats of a combatlord combind with a lvl 4 mage.
i mis that the mark of khorn generates a dispeldice. (fore each mark +1 dice, an armie of khorne didn't fear magi ad all)
i mis the fact that you had to have a mark of chaos undivided on your genaral in order to take difrent marks in you armie.
i miss my beast herd flanks...

i hate to be forced in taking multiple marks if i want to win (i am not a good player so i need the mix :))

i love the asf gaint. the helcanon, the fact that warrios are always chosen (remeber the time that the chose upgrade was way to expensive and that a chosen warior was 20 points a piece?)
i love the new models.

i love the armie, fluff, options, it just feels like they are limmited, even if they aren't and have tons of new options.

Poseidal
18-02-2010, 10:48
I actually prefer the new book.

I was never much interested in the Daemons or Beastmen, but the mortal side. I find the races cultures more interesting; Empire Culture, Brettonian Culture, High Elf Culture etc. It's all a clash of culture and the HoC hordes were actually more one dimensional to me.

It does have it's shortcomings, but what books don't? A little more flexibility would be nice, but I think that's the fault of the old HoC having not enough mortal options because Beasts and Daemons filled some of the roles. Something like Marauder Skirmishers would be nice for instance.

Witchblade
18-02-2010, 11:29
God alignments were better previously, much better. Mono-god armies were a lot cooler and marks were more fluffy. Mono-khorne was viable without taking a slave scroll caddy, Tzeentch casters were actually good fighters and Nurgle was less boring. Slaanesh has always been boring in game, despite being awesome in fluff.

New magic lores are better though.

HoC had more variety, but maybe too much and not in a very balanced manner, a bit like OnG.

Models are better now (obviously).

I don't mind the separation really. WoC and BoC have become somewhat monotonous, but that's a design flaw, not something inherent to the split. I think there is enough fluff per faction to make 3 separate armies that are all interesting.

the Goat
18-02-2010, 12:32
I have to say the new Warriors of Chaos book is just plain boring. I don't really mind splitting Daemons and Beasts into their own separate armies.

The universal rule that all characters have to issue challenges in combat, combined with a lack of magic items to make those characters good in challenges is really dumb.

Plus the "eye of the gods" table has way too many bad/neutral results on it. If you got to roll on the table a lot more, I would understand some bad results. But the game is only so many turns long and several turns you are not in combat. And even if you are in combat there might not even be an opposing character to kill. So in an average game you might end up rolling two or three times. The table should really be a lot better.

BigbyWolf
18-02-2010, 13:08
TBH the biggest disapointment for me was to open the new book and find that virtually every bit of the history/ backstory regarding Chaos in general was a carbon copy of the HoC book, even the short stories they had were the same!

I don't think the modern list is a one dimensional as people think, I'm quite happy going infantry heavy, knight heavy, a mixture, or even 100% monsters (thanks Throgg!). I usually go magic light with it as well, with just a humble caddy to watch over me.

But, being a traditionalist...I miss the days when the Norse were separate to Chaos, and you only got Warriors and cultists. My current army reflects this, with corrupted state troops instead of Marauders.

The changing of the Marks was a big disappointment, as it makes a true mono-Khonre army pretty uncompetitive, and the ability to have a full mix 'n match army was quite fun as well, although tbh in those days I only used the Beasts list to add Trolls and a Shaggoth to my list...so I'm not missing too much this edition.

blackjack
18-02-2010, 14:28
My problem with WOC is that it lack variaty. No flyers, no skimishers, almost no shooting and characters with iron bound rules on what they have to do in combat (Always challenge even if you are a Sorc? WTF?) The army book is just a big bag of hammers with one dominating unit (knights) and not much else.

A magic heavy knight heavy army is fairly competitive but the book does not lend it self to any other builds. Monster mash is a cool concept but sucks in practice. The actual Warriors of Chaos blocks are great on paper, in practice they are too slow and too expensive to field.

Lore of metal armies, Skirmishing terrain huging armies all have a field day against WOC. WOC have nothing in the entire army that can move into terrain. Apart from magic they have nothing that can do anything about skirmish enemies. The only flaming weapon in the entire book is 75pts, so magic is needed again to fend off regenating enemies. The only way to fend off lore of metal opponents... You guessed it, more mages.

So you are really forced into taking a heavy magic army with a minimum of 2 units of knights for even basic competitiveness. The more knights and the more magic you bring the more competitive you become.

Jack of Blades
18-02-2010, 14:50
So basically, WoC is simply not worth investing in unless you're fine with playing an army that doesn't have internal balance in its dictionary, has had part of its feeling and good rules wrenched out of it and scratches its head in amazement when someone mentions the word ''variation''.

I think the way they handled WoC has very much helped me make up my mind on when I will invest in Warhammer - far from now.

I love the idea of powerful footsloggers that look good as well, Chosen really appeal to me. But the many flaws in the army simply put me away from it. A shame really. I have always wanted to do an army containing stuff like Chosen with some tactical support & a non-mounted lord on a big base kitted for close combat, WoC would've been my dream come true, but alas ;). Seems like my Ogres will continue in their dust gathering quest while I wait for better days...

Poseidal
18-02-2010, 15:00
To be fair, it's not only the WoC footsloggers who have a problem...

InquisitorWOC
18-02-2010, 15:30
Wow, lots of WOC hate here.. Clearly your not using enough warhounds. The design of the army is hack and slash, or death by magic. I started the army strictly for hack and slash, and I LOVE the new book. I agree with the other posts though, it is like another army of humans, but in perspective they split one army into 3. Now, you can exercise your demonic side, the sadistic hammer of chaos side, OR the inner beat within. Far as I am concerned, your options for armies just increased which is never a bad thing to add variety to the game. The new book has its flaws, but which is perfect? Yeah, it is a pain with no shooters or skirmishers but thats why we have the MON and such an excellent armor save! Love your army, hate your rival.

Did I mention use more warhounds?

TheDarkDuke
18-02-2010, 21:30
Wow, lots of WOC hate here.. Clearly your not using enough warhounds. The design of the army is hack and slash, or death by magic. I started the army strictly for hack and slash, and I LOVE the new book. I agree with the other posts though, it is like another army of humans, but in perspective they split one army into 3. Now, you can exercise your demonic side, the sadistic hammer of chaos side, OR the inner beat within. Far as I am concerned, your options for armies just increased which is never a bad thing to add variety to the game. The new book has its flaws, but which is perfect? Yeah, it is a pain with no shooters or skirmishers but thats why we have the MON and such an excellent armor save! Love your army, hate your rival.

Did I mention use more warhounds?

I dont think any one said warhound were bad or dont use them but they dont make the army fun or really give it any form of variation at all.

And how the hell have your options for armies increased unless you basically already had 2000 points of each army any way in which case your options have not increase they have been decreased since you can no longer combine them.

Or if your like me you have 3 half of a half armies basically your forced to buy alot more models just to be able to use your new more boring army(armies) that all seem to play pretty much the same as the other (I guess demons are bit different in that aspect however)

Cartoon
19-02-2010, 06:58
So far I don't mind the WoC book. The one thing that really sucks is the lack of decent magic items for a combat character, as was stated before, and the lack of magic defense. I'm still bound and determined to use my chosen, as I like the models to much to leave at home, and have had some success mixing in a couple units of knights and a chariot or two. Granted, I don't play the game very often so I don't get burned out on the list, but so far I've been having a blast. Lore of metal armies make me a sad panda though.

Also, festering shroud combined with blasphemous amulet has been loads of fun, especially against elves. Also it kinda sucks to lose half your army to bolt throwers and cannons before you even kill an enemy model in CC. But such is life. Lately I've been thinking about starting up a small Skaven army to switch beats a little.

Jesus, that post was all over the place. So in conclusion, WoC have awesome models, especially chosen.

Voss
19-02-2010, 07:08
The background was murdered and dumped in a shallow grave, Daemons were spun off and are out of step with the power level of the majority of the army books, and the happy-skippy-friendly-rivalry of the chaos powers makes me want to puke unicorns and rainbows. Warriors are, frankly, quite dull on their own. Trolls and Dragon Ogres wandering around with Norscans doesn't make for a proper Chaotic Host. And beasts don't make for an effective or interesting list in any way shape or form. It makes me sad that they've just got watered down or toned up (to 11!) versions of other armies' rules, and that WoC can do better horde units than beasts can... both in numbers and effectiveness.

I'm a bit amused at the several 'Well, the models are better' claims in this thread. They are, but that has nothing to do with the book, especially with the 'release waves' policy now in effect. They could have easily given us nice models without stomping all over the background.

Jack of Blades
19-02-2010, 07:22
Daemons were spun off and are out of step with the power level of the majority of the army books

This is a bit off my own topic but *sigh*, the way they handled DPs in both DoC and WoC make me want to cry blood and fire. There are inconsistancies between them too. DoC ones have to pay to fly, don't cause terror (that's right, a skeleton is scarier than a DP :rolleyes:), are M8 and cannot be level 4 sorcerers... that's all I can think of for now.

In DoC they aren't as bad as in WoC but they're still useless compared to the other options you have due to only being able to be lvl 2 sorcerers and 75 points of gifts (50 if you mark them). If Master of Sorcery wasn't a Tzeentch-only gift or could be taken by unmarked DPs too then you could at least have used it to get Flaming Sword of Rhuin and some other goodies, but nay and yay for a 2/6 chance of even getting FSoR. Ideally they'd have let them increase to level 4 sorcerers and let them take 75 points of gifts, marked or not. That would be enough for me. In their current incarnation, a Greater Daemon is 150 points more expensive by default but they can put their point cost to use infinitely better than a DP can, more than justifying their cost.

In WoC they are even worse. You're better off just taking more other models instead of spending points on the universally crap/overpriced gifts and unlike the DoC ones that can actually be pretty decent in combat, yours will hit weaker than a pair of Chaos Warriors while having nothing that characters usually have like no armour saves, re-roll to hit and so on to make up for it. I wouldn't take a WoC DP even if it came with all of the Daemonic Gifts for free, except against Goblin armies or stuff like that... in which case I might as well have mounted my Lord on a Dragon/Manticore for the same effect.

Seriously, why did they have to get them wrong in both books? why something that is so cool that people force themselves to take one even if they suck monkey nuts? Why pick that thing to be one of the army book's useless options, GW? :rolleyes:

The Devourer
19-02-2010, 13:27
I was thinking about this last week when I was looking through my stack of army books.

What really stood out was how bland the new fluff is. In HoC there were travellers diaries, Chosen of chaos talking about how they see the world and even conversations between norsemen and empire traders.

In WoC everything is seen from an outsiders view. It becomes one size fits all, as usual with GW. It takes away the natural feel you used to get. It made the whole seeting feel a lot more epic and limitless. Instead of the feel that there are many possibilities we are given a very bland description that everyone always acts the same way. Norse men now are all raiders and hate others, and the humans from the empire always fear them.

Ruleswise I think HoC was also better. In the chaos wastes Chaos warriors, beastmen and daemons all live close together except now they never work together. It was eay to do a competitive themed army whereas WoC took that away.

I don't understand GWs obsession with making armies 1 species only. I don't really think daemons needed their own book, and beastmen that work with humans would have a different structure to an entirely beastman army. An army based on the chaos wastes made much more sense than purely warriors of chaos.

Lordsaradain
20-02-2010, 21:36
Ruleswise I think HoC was also better. In the chaos wastes Chaos warriors, beastmen and daemons all live close together except now they never work together. It was eay to do a competitive themed army whereas WoC took that away.

I don't understand GWs obsession with making armies 1 species only. I don't really think daemons needed their own book, and beastmen that work with humans would have a different structure to an entirely beastman army. An army based on the chaos wastes made much more sense than purely warriors of chaos.

I agree with this. HoC and BoC allowed players to completely theme their armies, you could field an undivided beastman army pouring out of drakwald, a small norse slaaneshi raiding warband, a blood thirster leading a horde of deamons and anything and everything in between. There was so much versitality and the best thing was that pretty much every type of army could be effective(although I must admit I thought MoN was abit underpowered).

The current books give the players less options, and making a themed army is harder.

But the new models, marauder horsemen and chaos knights especially are AWESOME!